Sorry for placing this here on the philosophy forum. I'm convinced some good discussion can come from this, though. I found this post while perusing my facebook profile. It's from a University of Arizona page that publishes anonymous posts made to the profile by others:

"Sorority Girls Who dress in minimal clothing,

I am a guy, and while I am not lifting huge weights or playing on a UA sports team, I think you may want to hear my opinion. You all are beautiful. Honestly. But when your dress looks like my washcloth, it saddens me. I want nothing more then for you all to value yourselves for the beautiful humans you are, and start showing us more then your a** and your wonder bra-ed tits. You have so much to offer the world, don't let some d**che take advantage of you who just wants to put it in you and drop you like a rock after. We all enjoy the feeling of sex, I get it. But is it going to be fun to have to tell the man you end up REALLY loving and wanting to spend your life with, that you sucked off 15 guys before him? I am a guy and let me tell you, that is some hard baggage for any dude to handle. I know my words are strong here, but please know you are precious, one of a kind souls, and you deserve to be looked at and treated like it. Please know you are worth SO much more then your body.

Sincerely,Me and a lot of other good people on this campus"

It was greeted with responses like the following (which I found quite funny):

"A woman owning her sexuality does not devalue her as a human being."

"Slut shaming is such a vile thing. This post deeply saddens me."

"Way to be a slut-shaming a--hole. Women can make their own choices, and guess what? THEY DON'T MAKE EVERY DECISION OF THEIR LIVES BASED ON THE OPINIONS OF MEN. Or at least, they wouldn't in a perfect world where misogyny wasn't being kept alive and well by jerks like you."

"I think the others already summed up why this post is ridiculous, so I'll just say F**K YOU and your body policing. You're such a 'nice guy'."

"While we're still on this, a girl's number is nobody's business but her own and if someone claims to love her and then ditches her because she's been with 'too many' guys before, then he's an a**hole"

"I am likewise ashamed of the people who posted this, thinking it was a good, positive message to girls on this campus. Telling women to stop being sluts for the things they do with their bodies is a complete contradiction to your statement that we are worth more than our bodies. If we were then our actions related to them would be irrelevant. Women should not be judged by their sexuality but by the content of their character. This message encourages stereotypes and slut-shaming and I am ashamed it was published."

Thoughts?

Would you consider marrying a girl who's, well, as the original poster put it "sucked off" 15 guys?

Would you consider marrying a girl who's, well, as the original poster put it "sucked off" 15 guys?

Well, let's take the gender specific rhetoric off the table. Would I consider marrying a person who has had sex with more than 15 people? Sure. I'd want a blood test, obviously, but I'd want that regardless of what a person told me their sexual history was.

Do you value virginity when considering who to marry/date?

Not really. The idea of not having sex before one was married is a bit antiquated.

Do you think that sexual looseness/adultery is immoral?

Cheating is both immoral and unethical, but I see no value to the exercise of judging -I choose the word 'judging' with a specific point and purpose- individuals of legal age who engage in consensual sex.

I am a guy, and while I am not lifting huge weights or playing on a UA sports team, I think you may want to hear my opinion.

Is this supposed to be ironic or something? He is assuming they are shallow enough to only care about his opinion if he looks attractive in a stereotypical way....

You all are beautiful. Honestly. But when your dress looks like my washcloth, it saddens me. I want nothing more then for you all to value yourselves for the beautiful humans you are,

Why does wearing skimpy outfits automatically mean that they do not value themselves as "beautiful humans"? Maybe they just like the outfit.. Maybe the outfit is in style (as most of the typical sorority dress is). Maybe it's hot that day. Maybe they simply think the outfit is cute and he is the one who is sexualizing it. Or, maybe they simply had the audacity to desire to look sexy? And so what if they did? If anything, this guy is the one with the problem for assuming they think of themselves as less than human simply because they wore a certain dress some random day. Gimme a break.

and start showing us more then your a** and your wonder bra-ed tits. You have so much to offer the world, don't let some d**che take advantage of you who just wants to put it in you and drop you like a rock after.

Wtf? Stereotyping someone because of their clothes, much? If they're in college at all, chances are they value their education, are relatively intelligent, and are working toward long-term goals... Also, maybe they want to screw the douche? Maybe the douche is hot (i.e. the number one characteristic women look for in a one-night stand)? How can a chick be taken advantage of in a sexual situation if they WANT the sex, exactly? He's mixing all sorts of concerns about some stereotypical woman he imagines all these sorority girls to be. He's not giving them the benefit of the doubt in the slightest and paradoxically claims to have their best interests in mind... How incredibly myopic...

We all enjoy the feeling of sex, I get it. But is it going to be fun to have to tell the man you end up REALLY loving and wanting to spend your life with, that you sucked off 15 guys before him? I am a guy and let me tell you, that is some hard baggage for any dude to handle. I know my words are strong here, but please know you are precious, one of a kind souls, and you deserve to be looked at and treated like it. Please know you are worth SO much more then your body.

Sincerely,Me and a lot of other good people on this campus"

So dumb. First of all- as if their priority number one is marriage. Second of all- as if their priority number one is marriage with a guy who is judgmental enough to tell her to reign in her own sexuality given it harms nobody. No thanks.Also, wtf again? Just because they wore a certain kind of dress, he's assuming that they go around giving blowjobs all willy-nilly? Maybe they don't have sex at all. Maybe they're in a committed relationship. Maybe they're a LESBIAN. Holy crap this post is so full of fail.

He literally saw women with short skirts and then judged and assumed these things about them:

1. they are desperate, single, heterosexual women who suck off every guy who shows them the slightest kindness2. and then who get dumped by those same guys, much to their surprise3. they aren't confident in themselves and think their body is the only thing important about them4. they just really want to find that nice guy but keep looking for love in all the wrong places... awww :( (I assume that the "nice guy" is him... gag..)5. they want to be in a committed relationship but resort to massive amounts of casual sex on accident (meaning they paradoxically want and don't want casual sex)6. they have low self-esteem, want to get married, care what their partner thinks about their sexual history, don't value their minds, aren't smart enough to make their own decisions about their body, etc. etc.

All that... just from how they dressed on the day he saw them...

If anything, the only reason not to wear short skirts at this point, is to avoid persecution from TOTAL A$$HOLES like this guy.I'm glad that dude got torn apart on facebook. He's clearly the douche here and deserves it.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

"Do you think that sexual looseness/adultery is immoral?"If it isn't an open relationship then yes. Other than that I don't really care.

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

Would you consider marrying a girl who's, well, as the original poster put it "sucked off" 15 guys?

Well, let's take the gender specific rhetoric off the table. Would I consider marrying a person who has had sex with more than 15 people? Sure. I'd want a blood test, obviously, but I'd want that regardless of what a person told me their sexual history was.

So you don't intend on marrying someone who you trust completely. Interesting.

Do you value virginity when considering who to marry/date?

Not really. The idea of not having sex before one was married is a bit antiquated.

Yea, just like the idea of not having to worry about AIDS.

Do you think that sexual looseness/adultery is immoral?

Cheating is both immoral and unethical, but I see no value to the exercise of judging -I choose the word 'judging' with a specific point and purpose- individuals of legal age who engage in consensual sex.

The posts here making fun of the original poster on that facebook page are ludicrous and absurd.

Look, girls dressing in skimpy clothing is usually to attract guys to their body; because they really, really care about guys' opinion on their body! It's simple. That guy on facebook was pointing out why they shouldn't care so much about people's opinion on their body.

So you don't intend on marrying someone who you trust completely. Interesting.

That's not entirely fair. I don't think it's a trust issue per se, as much as a mathematical issue. Nobody knows FOR SURE if they've caught something unless they get tested, so if they haven't been tested it's not unreasonable to ask they be tested.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 1/24/2013 9:47:42 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:The posts here making fun of the original poster on that facebook page are ludicrous and absurd.

Look, girls dressing in skimpy clothing is usually to attract guys to their body; because they really, really care about guys' opinion on their body! It's simple. That guy on facebook was pointing out why they shouldn't care so much about people's opinion on their body.

The only thing that is "simple" here is your analysis of why women wear the clothing that they do. And I don't mean that in a good way. Don't flatter yourself. It's not always to get guys interested nor is a sexual outfit always intentional.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

At 1/23/2013 7:41:53 PM, SovereignDream wrote:Would you consider marrying a girl who's, well, as the original poster put it "sucked off" 15 guys?

I would prefer a sexually experienced girl. I had (kinda have, not sure if she's still up for it) a friend with benefits who gave great bjs - she wouldn't have been as fun if she hadn't had plenty of experience with other guys. I guess there might be some fun in teaching a girl to be good at sex, but there's no way having sex with lots of guys would be a negative if I was considering a long term relationship.

Do you value virginity when considering who to marry/date?

No, it's irrelevant beyond a sort of sexual fantasy of teaching an innocent girl to be dirty. But I imagine that isn't what you're thinking lol.

Do you think that sexual looseness/adultery is immoral?

NO WAY should those be grouped together. Being 'loose' is just a bullsh*t moralising way to describe a very sexually active person. It's also only ever applied to women which is sexist. I think sex is awesome, having lots of sex is awesome provided you do it safely, and that in fact sex is a morally valuable thing and we should do more of it. So I think 'sexual looseness' is moral, not immoral.

Adultery is immoral because it is a violation of trust and a promise to remain exclusive to your partner. Having said that, if there is no promise - i.e. if it's an open relationship or a poly relationship, it doesn't constitute adultery.

1) Wearing barely anything will make 40% of people think you're an idiot, 40% of people think you're easy.

2) No, that isn't men's fault, it's yours. Get over it. You cannot simultaneously have the right to wear what you want and the right from people staring at you for what you wear. The rights are in contraposition.

3) This goes for men too. And women wearing burkhas. And people in general wearing nothing. And transvestites wearing budgie smugglers.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

You know why feminism, and especially the stupid feminists are so successful? Because we entertain the thought that women are not equal to men, and thus refer to people as "he's" or "she's" on these politico-moral issues.

Anything that one person cannot do, they cannot do for the fact that they are unable to do it. If one's a bloke and cannot do it, fine, one cannot do it. If one's black and cannot do it, fine, one cannot do it. Does these characteristics matter? No. Nor should they. Nor do I give two arses about whether you think it should - you're wrong. Now get off your discriminatory high horse and discuss the issue rationally.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

At 1/24/2013 9:47:42 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:The posts here making fun of the original poster on that facebook page are ludicrous and absurd.

Look, girls dressing in skimpy clothing is usually to attract guys to their body; because they really, really care about guys' opinion on their body! It's simple. That guy on facebook was pointing out why they shouldn't care so much about people's opinion on their body.

Back when it was summer, i wore a sundress that wasn't exactly covering my legs down to my ankles. let's look at the possible reasons for this, shall we?- It was warm and a sweater and jeans would have been silly, uncomfortable, and possibly result in heatstroke (and what girl who respects her body would give it heatstroke?)- I liked the dress for no other reason that that it was pretty or comfortable.- I had a swimsuit on underneath and was *gasp* trying to cover up a bit so as not to reveal too much in the wrong situation.- I felt that i looked good in it and so it made me more confident and happy.- I was trying to attract a guy's attention. (your suggestion is a possibility, yes, but not the only one)- I was trying to attract a girl's attention. (yeah, that's possible)

At 1/24/2013 9:47:42 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:The posts here making fun of the original poster on that facebook page are ludicrous and absurd.

Look, girls dressing in skimpy clothing is usually to attract guys to their body; because they really, really care about guys' opinion on their body! It's simple. That guy on facebook was pointing out why they shouldn't care so much about people's opinion on their body.

Back when it was summer, i wore a sundress that wasn't exactly covering my legs down to my ankles.

At 1/24/2013 9:47:42 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:The posts here making fun of the original poster on that facebook page are ludicrous and absurd.

Look, girls dressing in skimpy clothing is usually to attract guys to their body; because they really, really care about guys' opinion on their body! It's simple. That guy on facebook was pointing out why they shouldn't care so much about people's opinion on their body.

Back when it was summer, i wore a sundress that wasn't exactly covering my legs down to my ankles.

HahahahHAHAHAhahahHAhAHHAhahhhahahaaaaaa

Lol, tbh it wasn't even that short or low-cut, i just wanted to make a case for why his view of why girls don't wear clothes straight out of the 1700s is incomplete.

At 1/24/2013 9:47:42 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:The posts here making fun of the original poster on that facebook page are ludicrous and absurd.

Look, girls dressing in skimpy clothing is usually to attract guys to their body; because they really, really care about guys' opinion on their body! It's simple. That guy on facebook was pointing out why they shouldn't care so much about people's opinion on their body.

Back when it was summer, i wore a sundress that wasn't exactly covering my legs down to my ankles. let's look at the possible reasons for this, shall we?- It was warm and a sweater and jeans would have been silly, uncomfortable, and possibly result in heatstroke (and what girl who respects her body would give it heatstroke?)- I liked the dress for no other reason that that it was pretty or comfortable.- I had a swimsuit on underneath and was *gasp* trying to cover up a bit so as not to reveal too much in the wrong situation.- I felt that i looked good in it and so it made me more confident and happy.- I was trying to attract a guy's attention. (your suggestion is a possibility, yes, but not the only one)- I was trying to attract a girl's attention. (yeah, that's possible)

So i don't think it's quite that simple.

Thank you.

: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.

Would you consider marrying a girl who's, well, as the original poster put it "sucked off" 15 guys?

Well, let's take the gender specific rhetoric off the table. Would I consider marrying a person who has had sex with more than 15 people? Sure. I'd want a blood test, obviously, but I'd want that regardless of what a person told me their sexual history was.

So you don't intend on marrying someone who you trust completely. Interesting.

How on earth did you conclude that I don't intend on marrying someone that I trust completely based on the statement I made? That's a conclusion SO far beyond the scope of what I said that I can't even anticipate how you reached it.

Do you value virginity when considering who to marry/date?

Not really. The idea of not having sex before one was married is a bit antiquated.

Yea, just like the idea of not having to worry about AIDS.

Two words: Blood. Test.

Do you think that sexual looseness/adultery is immoral?

Cheating is both immoral and unethical, but I see no value to the exercise of judging -I choose the word 'judging' with a specific point and purpose- individuals of legal age who engage in consensual sex.

So no, you don't think it's immoral.

I didn't say that. I said it's unethical. I didn't even address morality. What I think is that that I take issue with the question, so I'm not going to answer it.

At 1/24/2013 8:46:25 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:That's 2 people who straw-manned me. I said usually.

Okay, provide some evidence that that is the most "usual" reason for wearing skimpy clothing, then. And even if i did strawman you, my point still stands that women wear skimpy clothing for various reasons (probably even more than i listed) and the fb poster was being irrational for assuming the more or less the exact same thing you did (although you included "usually").

For now, I'd like to comment on some of the responses to the original post.

"A woman owning her sexuality does not devalue her as a human being."

First off, what in the world is meant by "owning one's sexuality"? As this comment seems to indicate, it apparently means engaging in any and all sexual encounters that happen to present themselves. That's hardly "owning" one's sexuality. In fact, it seems to be the exact opposite; to "own" one's sexuality would mean to be in control of it rather than being controlled by it. If one cannot restrain themselves from engaging in sexual activity when thy shouldn't is hardly being in control of one's sexuality. "Owning" one's sexuality would mean that such a person has the moral fortitude to not go around sleeping with all the individuals s/he wants and avoid engaging in all sorts of sexual deviancies and adulterous behavior. This comment also appears to implicitly present a "don't judge others" attitude which seems to be not only inane and childish, but is also a perversion of Christian teaching.

"Slut shaming is such a vile thing. This post deeply saddens me."

A man lamenting the contemporary sexual morality in which

1). It is deemed acceptable for men and women to go to college with (more or less) the sole intention of engaging in alcohol-fueled sexual encounters is hardly a vile thing

2.) It is both appropriate and encouraged for men and women to "experiment sexually" (whatever in the world that is to mean), especially in college

3.) it is deemed acceptable for men and women to have reached marriage with an astounding sexual history

can hardly be "vile," now can it? Again, this post seems to berate the original poster by implying that his "judging" other individuals is "wrong". I guarantee the person who posted this response would be quick to "judge", say, a man who is accused of murdering children and then raping/cannibalizing their bodies. It seems as if the oblivious University moralist du jour is ready to "judge," as he puts it, certain actions (ie rape, murder, theft, etc) as "wrong" or "bad" but not others, especially when they concern sexual morality. So he inconsistently seems to both affirm some sort of moral realism all the while embracing some sort of relativism when it suits him (ie on matters of sexual morality), all the while no semblance of any philosophical thought or self-examination crosses his barren mind.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that this post thinks judging others is bad while sleeping with as many partners as one can is completely fine.

"Way to be a slut-shaming a--hole. Women can make their own choices."

Of course both men and women can make their own choices. That doesn't necessitate that those choices be moral nor that they be tolerated, or, at the very least, lamented.

"I think the others already summed up why this post is ridiculous, so I'll just say F**K YOU and your body policing. You're such a 'nice guy'."

No one is "policing" anybody else's body. That has nothing to do with the main problem, namely, whether adultery/engaging in many sexual encounters, especially before matrimony is moral or not.

"While we're still on this, a girl's number is nobody's business but her own and if someone claims to love her and then ditches her because she's been with 'too many' guys before, then he's an a**hole."

Or maybe that someone simply sees her "high number" as indicative of behaving immorally.

At 1/25/2013 2:29:04 PM, SovereignDream wrote:For now, I'd like to comment on some of the responses to the original post.

"A woman owning her sexuality does not devalue her as a human being."

First off, what in the world is meant by "owning one's sexuality"? As this comment seems to indicate, it apparently means engaging in any and all sexual encounters that happen to present themselves. That's hardly "owning" one's sexuality. In fact, it seems to be the exact opposite; to "own" one's sexuality would mean to be in control of it rather than being controlled by it. If one cannot restrain themselves from engaging in sexual activity when thy shouldn't is hardly being in control of one's sexuality. "Owning" one's sexuality would mean that such a person has the moral fortitude to not go around sleeping with all the individuals s/he wants and avoid engaging in all sorts of sexual deviancies and adulterous behavior. This comment also appears to implicitly present a "don't judge others" attitude which seems to be not only inane and childish, but is also a perversion of Christian teaching.

"Slut shaming is such a vile thing. This post deeply saddens me."

A man lamenting the contemporary sexual morality in which

1). It is deemed acceptable for men and women to go to college with (more or less) the sole intention of engaging in alcohol-fueled sexual encounters is hardly a vile thing

2.) It is both appropriate and encouraged for men and women to "experiment sexually" (whatever in the world that is to mean), especially in college

3.) it is deemed acceptable for men and women to have reached marriage with an astounding sexual history

can hardly be "vile," now can it? Again, this post seems to berate the original poster by implying that his "judging" other individuals is "wrong". I guarantee the person who posted this response would be quick to "judge", say, a man who is accused of murdering children and then raping/cannibalizing their bodies. It seems as if the oblivious University moralist du jour is ready to "judge," as he puts it, certain actions (ie rape, murder, theft, etc) as "wrong" or "bad" but not others, especially when they concern sexual morality. So he inconsistently seems to both affirm some sort of moral realism all the while embracing some sort of relativism when it suits him (ie on matters of sexual morality), all the while no semblance of any philosophical thought or self-examination crosses his barren mind.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that this post thinks judging others is bad while sleeping with as many partners as one can is completely fine.

"Way to be a slut-shaming a--hole. Women can make their own choices."

Of course both men and women can make their own choices. That doesn't necessitate that those choices be moral nor that they be tolerated, or, at the very least, lamented.

"I think the others already summed up why this post is ridiculous, so I'll just say F**K YOU and your body policing. You're such a 'nice guy'."

No one is "policing" anybody else's body. That has nothing to do with the main problem, namely, whether adultery/engaging in many sexual encounters, especially before matrimony is moral or not.

"While we're still on this, a girl's number is nobody's business but her own and if someone claims to love her and then ditches her because she's been with 'too many' guys before, then he's an a**hole."

Or maybe that someone simply sees her "high number" as indicative of behaving immorally.

Well put.

At 1/24/2013 9:32:59 PM, YYW wrote:

At 1/24/2013 9:44:53 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:

At 1/23/2013 8:26:58 PM, YYW wrote:

Would you consider marrying a girl who's, well, as the original poster put it "sucked off" 15 guys?

Well, let's take the gender specific rhetoric off the table. Would I consider marrying a person who has had sex with more than 15 people? Sure. I'd want a blood test, obviously, but I'd want that regardless of what a person told me their sexual history was.

So you don't intend on marrying someone who you trust completely. Interesting.

How on earth did you conclude that I don't intend on marrying someone that I trust completely based on the statement I made? That's a conclusion SO far beyond the scope of what I said that I can't even anticipate how you reached it.

If you fail to realize the inference I made, even if you don't agree with it, then I won't waste my time arguing it with you. It's just too obvious.

Do you value virginity when considering who to marry/date?

Not really. The idea of not having sex before one was married is a bit antiquated.

Yea, just like the idea of not having to worry about AIDS.

Two words: Blood. Test.

Because of the increase in casual sex, you are convinced that you should scientifically prove your girlfriend doesn't have an incurable, contagious, debilitating, and deadly disease before marrying her. But you brush it off like it's no big deal. What would it take for you to reconsider? Would the risks of casual sex have to involve your girlfriend turning into a werewolf before you realize it isn't 'good' or 'safe'?

Do you think that sexual looseness/adultery is immoral?

Cheating is both immoral and unethical, but I see no value to the exercise of judging -I choose the word 'judging' with a specific point and purpose- individuals of legal age who engage in consensual sex.

So no, you don't think it's immoral.

I didn't say that. I said it's unethical. I didn't even address morality. What I think is that that I take issue with the question, so I'm not going to answer it.

At 1/26/2013 1:14:36 AM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:On second thought, maybe I will waste my time arguing with you :)

The fundamental problem with the way you think is that you read into the words of others the views that you hold yourself. Obviously, you believe that a full disclosure of one's sexual history is a necessary prerequisite for trust. What you assume is that this belief is something that I hold too, and I don't. That was the point I was making. I was hoping that you would have the intellectual capacity to arrive at this realization without my having to explain it to you. But my hope was obviously in vain. Rather, you essentially blew me off in one sentence and accused me of dodging an issue you -quite obviously- didn't understand to begin with. Because you projected your views into your understanding of my words, you drew a conclusion that was profoundly beyond the scope of what I said. Btw. google "ethics" and "morals." They are not and do not mean the same thing.

Sovereign, I'm glad you're here. I think you're pretty much my opposite on every important issue, which is a valuable virtue to have on a debating website.

"A woman owning her sexuality does not devalue her as a human being."

First off, what in the world is meant by "owning one's sexuality"? As this comment seems to indicate, it apparently means engaging in any and all sexual encounters that happen to present themselves. That's hardly "owning" one's sexuality. In fact, it seems to be the exact opposite; to "own" one's sexuality would mean to be in control of it rather than being controlled by it. If one cannot restrain themselves from engaging in sexual activity when thy shouldn't is hardly being in control of one's sexuality. "Owning" one's sexuality would mean that such a person has the moral fortitude to not go around sleeping with all the individuals s/he wants and avoid engaging in all sorts of sexual deviancies and adulterous behavior. This comment also appears to implicitly present a "don't judge others" attitude which seems to be not only inane and childish, but is also a perversion of Christian teaching.

Soo much bullsh*t assumptions implicit in this post. Here they are:

1. Having lots of sex means you have lost control of yourself, rather than that you just want to have lots of sex.

2. Having lots of sex means that you have sex at any random opportunity with any random person, rather than you creating lots of opportunities with people you trust.

3. Having lots of sex should be lumped in with cheating on your spouse, despite them being completely different things.

4. Sexual deviancies are inherently immoral because not following the norm is always bad.

5. It is moral fortitude to refuse to have sex with people you want to, because sex is immoral and pleasure is bad unless you do it in the way I say you have to.

"Slut shaming is such a vile thing. This post deeply saddens me."

A man lamenting the contemporary sexual morality in which

1). It is deemed acceptable for men and women to go to college with (more or less) the sole intention of engaging in alcohol-fueled sexual encounters is hardly a vile thing

As somebody who has have many such encounters, enjoyed most of them, made sure the other person also enjoyed them, I resent the claim that they are vile. I had fun, they had fun, where exactly does the 'vileness' come into that?

2.) It is both appropriate and encouraged for men and women to "experiment sexually" (whatever in the world that is to mean), especially in college

Yes, because sometimes children don't fit into the proconcieved sexual cookie cutter template that their parents make for them. At college people can meet other people like them, find their most comfortable sexual nature and have fun. They never have that opportunity if they don't experiment.

3.) it is deemed acceptable for men and women to have reached marriage with an astounding sexual history

It's only astounding to you Christians who regard pleasure for the sake of pleasure as evil and therefore are horrified when people actually spend a lot of their lives having fun. My god, the horror.

can hardly be "vile," now can it? Again, this post seems to berate the original poster by implying that his "judging" other individuals is "wrong". I guarantee the person who posted this response would be quick to "judge", say, a man who is accused of murdering children and then raping/cannibalizing their bodies. It seems as if the oblivious University moralist du jour is ready to "judge," as he puts it, certain actions (ie rape, murder, theft, etc) as "wrong" or "bad" but not others, especially when they concern sexual morality. So he inconsistently seems to both affirm some sort of moral realism all the while embracing some sort of relativism when it suits him (ie on matters of sexual morality), all the while no semblance of any philosophical thought or self-examination crosses his barren mind.

The highlighted sentence doesn't follow from anything you said prior in the paragraph. Regarding X, Y and Z as immoral while regarding Q, W and E as morally permissible doesn't make you inconsistent - it just means you and him aren't following the same criteria for judging things moral or immoral.

Not to mention, of course, the fact that this post thinks judging others is bad while sleeping with as many partners as one can is completely fine.

Yeah, because he doesn't have the same moral assumptions you do.

"Way to be a slut-shaming a--hole. Women can make their own choices."

Of course both men and women can make their own choices. That doesn't necessitate that those choices be moral nor that they be tolerated, or, at the very least, lamented.

It doesn't necessitate it, it doesn't preclude it either. And slut shaming is one of the stupidest, most pervasive bullying tactics against girls I've seen. It's horrible.

"I think the others already summed up why this post is ridiculous, so I'll just say F**K YOU and your body policing. You're such a 'nice guy'."

No one is "policing" anybody else's body. That has nothing to do with the main problem, namely, whether adultery/engaging in many sexual encounters, especially before matrimony is moral or not.

In your previous statement you considered whether women's choices should be 'tolerated'. Sounds like you want to police other people's bodies to me.

"While we're still on this, a girl's number is nobody's business but her own and if someone claims to love her and then ditches her because she's been with 'too many' guys before, then he's an a**hole."

Or maybe that someone simply sees her "high number" as indicative of behaving immorally.

Yeah, then they're an a$$hole and they're working under stupid moral assumptions.